Predict the most populous city in the world in 2050 and in 2100

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

all wrong!

speilberg said columbus will be biggest city top dawg by 2045.

If Columbus is the biggest city by 2045, something terrible will have happened

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by badrunner

If Columbus is the biggest city by 2045, something terrible will have happened

i dk if they explained it, i couldn't sit thru ready player one. the rest of ohio would have no doubts tho!

[edale]

Originally Posted by jd3189

LA could only one day supercede NYC if most of it was dramatically upzoned. Instead of mostly SFH districts, add more small apartments and continue the revitalization of Downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods. NYC is doing the same thing though in its own way.

If that happened, LA would no longer be LA. The sun and the landscape are important features here and, for better or worse, lowrise development is part of the identity of Southern California. We are densifying all over and starting to realize the earlier visions of a multi-nodal city as the rail system continues to be built out, but Los Angeles was never intended to be NYC. There is little desire for everyone in this city or region to be crammed into highrise housing. In DTLA, Hollywood, Koreatown, Wilshire, any number of TOD areas? Sure. But to the point where highrises and midrises become the dominant housing typology and we have a city of 8 million? No way.

LA city is still has just half (or slightly under half) of the population in NYC. There is no way this city could double in size with the infrastructure it has now. NYC became NYC because of the subway and the trains that allow so many people to pack into the city. LA's rail system, including metrolink commuter rail, is a drop in the bucket compared to NYC. For these reasons, I think there is basically no way LA city overtakes NYC.

The only way I can see the LA CSA overtaking NYC is through increased development in the IE. There is still a fair amount of room to sprawl to, but again, the IE would basically need to double in population (assuming a static LA metro) for the CSAs to be equal (again assuming static NYC metro growth).

[jd3189]

^^^ The small car-oriented apartments are already a part of LA and Southern California as much as the SFHs are. Just having more of them wouldn’t change much and the SFH can still dominate the hilly areas with great views. And, currently, public transportation is increasing in the basin.

If SoCal wants to continue growing sustainably, some level of density will have to happen. Unless the current situation is favorable.

[iheartthed]

L.A. absolutely can't overtake NYC's current population without a substantial expansion of public transit. The roads there are already at capacity, so how would the roads system support another several million cars without a shift in behavior?

[edale]

Originally Posted by jd3189

^^^ The small car-oriented apartments are already a part of LA and Southern California as much as the SFHs are. Just having more of them wouldn’t change much and the SFH can still dominate the hilly areas with great views. And, currently, public transportation is increasing in the basin.

If SoCal wants to continue growing sustainably, some level of density will have to happen. Unless the current situation is favorable.

You're not going to double the city's population just by building some dingbats or garden apartments in Hancock Park and Sherman Oaks. Notice I said low-rise not SFH. The majority of Angelenos already live in multifamily housing. Eliminating SFH neighborhoods, many of which are protected historic districts and very desirable, and replacing them with moderate density wouldn't do much to grow the city's population- at least not in the way you're suggesting it would. In order for LA to reach NYC's population, the entire city would have to basically be rebuilt.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by badrunner

They're not necessarily bad designs. Middle America just has very conservative tastes when it comes to housing.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Well, style is subjective. I agree this is horrible, but lots of people like it.

There's probably also a cultural difference. My wife is from a moderately affluent Mexican family, and everyone in the Mexican upper class prefers modernist homes and interiors. I think wealthy Latin Americans generally like modern-style homes, and wealthy Americans generally like fake Italian villa-style homes.

Of course, there are exceptions. The Hamptons and West LA are heavily modernist. Wealthy urban neighborhoods usually have attractively designed homes. Some of the more affluent metros like NY, LA, SF have better design, and Miami is heavily modernist (probably due to Latin influence).

And old money WASP types generally hate the tacky look. Places like Coastal Connecticut, Westchester County, NY and North Shore of Chicago have little tacky design.

I guess it might be a cultural thing, but I can't help myself to find those examples like those in suburban Dallas and elsewhere not only tacky, but incredibly cheap. It seems there is no architect involved whatsoever, only a construction firm with copy and past projects.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I guess it might be a cultural thing, but I can't help myself to find those examples like those in suburban Dallas and elsewhere not only tacky, but incredibly cheap. It seems there is no architect involved whatsoever, only a construction firm with copy and past projects.

Many suburban neighborhoods in the US have three or four designs copy and pasted, with minor variations in color.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Many suburban neighborhoods in the US have three or four designs copy and pasted, with minor variations in color.

Many traditionally urban neighborhoods in the US do this as well..... Boston triple deckers, Philly rowhouses, chicago 2-flats, etc.

any human settlement that goes through a period of very fast growth tends to see repetitive patterns in its residential housing stock.

there generally isn't enough time or money to reinvent the wheel for each individual home in fast growth areas.



repetitive "suburban" housing in chicago from 100 years ago:


Source: https://u.realgeeks.media/chicagorea...ck_2_flats.png

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I guess it might be a cultural thing, but I can't help myself to find those examples like those in suburban Dallas and elsewhere not only tacky, but incredibly cheap. It seems there is no architect involved whatsoever, only a construction firm with copy and past projects.

It's not a culturally subjective issue of taste - typical contemporary North American suburban homes are objectively poorly designed, cheaply built structures made with a pastiche of architectural styles. It's about conveying a cartoonish illusion of affluence to the aesthetically illiterate; and elevating the desire for space above quality (ie. using lower-end finishes so you can build as big as possible).

And you're absolutely right - actual architects are rarely involved. They're usually done by "builders" with no formal background in design.

See: https://mcmansionhell.com/post/15189...-the-mcmansion

[edale]

Brazil doesn't exactly make me think of pretty cities or cities where design is prioritized...

[niwell]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

It's not a culturally subjective issue of taste - typical contemporary North American suburban homes are objectively poorly designed, cheaply built structures made with a pastiche of architectural styles. It's about conveying a cartoonish illusion of affluence to the aesthetically illiterate; and elevating the desire for space above quality (ie. using lower-end finishes so you can build as big as possible).

And you're absolutely right - actual architects are rarely involved. They're usually done by "builders" with no formal background in design.

See: https://mcmansionhell.com/post/15189...-the-mcmansion

I haven't looked at mcmansionhell in some time (mostly just follow her twitter) but that is an excellent chart!

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Many traditionally urban neighborhoods in the US do this as well..... Boston triple deckers, Philly rowhouses, chicago 2-flats, etc.

any human settlement that goes through a period of very fast growth tends to see repetitive patterns in its residential housing stock.

there generally isn't enough time or money to reinvent the wheel for each individual home in fast growth areas.



repetitive "suburban" housing in chicago from 100 years ago:


Source: https://u.realgeeks.media/chicagorea...ck_2_flats.png

You ungrateful little brat! Just look at everything you have. When I was your age, we... lived in a duplex! We didn't even have our own house!




there is no other line in this movie (American Beauty) that speaks to Carolyn Burnham's shallow, materialistic personality, than this one.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

Brazil doesn't exactly make me think of pretty cities or cities where design is prioritized...

I chuckled. Rio is pretty, though.

[Crawford]

I will say that Latin American high-end homes don't seem super well-designed either, though at least no tacky "Tuscan" design crap and third-rate chintz.

They're usually concrete block, cold in the winter, hard surfaces, and few furnishings. Everything echoes, with shitty acoustics. The lower end homes are just cinderblock. But maybe Brazil is different from Mexico.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I will say that Latin American high-end homes don't seem super well-designed either, though at least no tacky "Tuscan" design crap and third-rate chintz.

They're usually concrete block, cold in the winter, hard surfaces, and few furnishings. Everything echoes, with shitty acoustics. The lower end homes are just cinderblock. But maybe Brazil is different from Mexico.

And just about all single-family homes in Latin America are hidden behind 8-foot fences and mostly can't be seen from the street.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

And just about all single-family homes in Latin America are hidden behind 8-foot fences and mostly can't be seen from the street.

I wish I could find the exact article but some years ago I read an article online about cultural differences in fencing and gates in Los Angeles neighborhoods and gentrification; for several years now in LA, a "sure sign of gentrification" are those (what I think are awful) wood slat fences:


archinect

In many barrio areas where they have the wrought-iron fencing and gates (or chain-link), the gringos and other upwardly mobile types buying into these gentrifying nabes have been getting rid of the wrought-iron fencing but replacing them with these wood slat fences. I personally would just have NO fence in the front yard; in fact, some Craftsman bungalows in LA have been nicely restored but then instead of getting rid of the wrought-iron fencing and having the front yard open, they install the tacky wood slat fencing.

The article went on and interviewed some long-time residents, and some of them said "Well back in [fill-in-the-blank Latin-American country, I don't remember], iron fences would be considered more upscale and a sign of wealth than a wood fence, which would be considered a cheap, poor material." And then of course there are the Armenians who like to have wrought iron in a lot more places on their properties than just the fence, often custom-made looking and elaborate, like on their front doors, covering windows, etc.

So yeah, it's a cultural thing. I guess that was my point.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by edale

Brazil doesn't exactly make me think of pretty cities or cities where design is prioritized...

https://cdn.britannica.com/54/101754...-Sao-Paulo.jpg

There's a difference between utilitarian and tacky. The individual buildings in that image are at worst, bare-bones functional utilitarian buildings. Meanwhile I see many of at least some architectural merit. No comparison to McMansions.

Brazilian cities actually have some fantastic architecture and good streetscaping - at least in the affluent areas.

But then, perhaps that also speaks to the often-tacky tastes of our upper middle class as being a consequence of North America's greater class mobility...

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

It's not a culturally subjective issue of taste - typical contemporary North American suburban homes are objectively poorly designed, cheaply built structures made with a pastiche of architectural styles. It's about conveying a cartoonish illusion of affluence to the aesthetically illiterate; and elevating the desire for space above quality (ie. using lower-end finishes so you can build as big as possible).

And you're absolutely right - actual architects are rarely involved. They're usually done by "builders" with no formal background in design.

See: https://mcmansionhell.com/post/15189...-the-mcmansion

This 3 pic of Dallas, the modernist house, is a very common design for Brazilian upper middle-class houses.

And for houses above R$ 500,000 (US$ 100,000, maybe a US$ 250,000 PPP) people will usually hire an architect to work on it.

Originally Posted by edale

Brazil doesn't exactly make me think of pretty cities or cities where design is prioritized...

This pic has nothing to do with the discussion. That's a very decayed area of Downtown São Paulo, with pretty much zero inhabitants, with low-paid jobs. It was mostly built on a rush in the 1950's-1960's when the city was growing at 50%-100%/decade.

I was talking about wealthy suburbs, in an wealthy metro area, in any wealth country.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I will say that Latin American high-end homes don't seem super well-designed either, though at least no tacky "Tuscan" design crap and third-rate chintz.

They're usually concrete block, cold in the winter, hard surfaces, and few furnishings. Everything echoes, with shitty acoustics. The lower end homes are just cinderblock. But maybe Brazil is different from Mexico.

I don't know Mexico, but upper-middle class Brazilians tend to invest heavily on their houses: good materials, good designs for both furnitures and the house itself. We are making generalizations here, but it seems the average middle-class American care less about this.

For instance, I typed 'Casa Cor" on Google Images, a home fair that usually set trends for Brazilian housing: https://www.google.com/search?q=casa...h=667&biw=1366

Of course that's not representative of the middle-class housing stock, but that's certainly what people look for inspiration.

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

There's a difference between utilitarian and tacky. The individual buildings in that image are at worst, bare-bones functional utilitarian buildings. Meanwhile I see many of at least some architectural merit. No comparison to McMansions.

Brazilian cities actually have some fantastic architecture and good streetscaping - at least in the affluent areas.

But then, perhaps that also speaks to the often-tacky tastes of our upper middle class as being a consequence of North America's greater class mobility...

I also don't find those building "ugly". In fact, I love to walk around those streets, full of energy, with human scale. Also, hidden in this pic there are several hidden gems from the 1920's, 1930's and even very good examples of 1950's-1960's modernists, 1970's international styles. After that nothing more as the CBD moved further and further southwesternwards.

I don't think we can compare the richness and diversity of this pic with a bland street on the fringes of Dallas sprawl, specially in this forum.